Recently, there have been two interesting cases of judicial recusals, both related to college athletics. First, Duke University sued its former quarterback, Darian Mensah, to prevent him from entering the transfer portal, after Mensah had previously agreed to return to Duke. The judge in the case, Durham County Superior Court Judge Michael O’Foghludha, denied Duke’s request for a temporary restraining order, then recused himself. O’Foghludha is a Duke basketball season-ticket holder, and thus a booster according to NCAA rules. The second case concerned Charles Bediako, a former University of Alabama basketball player who is seeking to return to the team after having been an NBA draft pick. The judge in Bediako’s case voluntarily recused himself, after a motion for recusal was submitted by the NCAA. Tuscaloosa Circuit Court Judge James Roberts is listed as a donor on the Crimson Tide Foundation’s website. His replacement, Judge Daniel Pruet, is another Alabama graduate. Pruet is also overseeing the murder case of former Alabama basketball player Darius Miles. These situations raise questions about the nature of judicial recusal, and how much of a conflict of interest is necessary for recusal to occur. This post will suggest that the practical considerations surrounding recusal generally outweigh any actual impartiality that is present.

Suicide has been reported as the second leading cause of death among young adults. For collegiate athletes specifically, suicide rates doubled between 2002 and 2022. Despite growing mental health concerns, most Division I athletic departments still lack adequate mechanisms to address the needs of student-athletes. Although the NCAA has taken steps to prioritize student-athlete well-being, gaps remain between existing initiatives and reported needs.

Photo by Josh Olalde on Unsplash.